If youre a political junkie, youve got to love a presidential candidate who lights the fire Newt Gingrich has lit. Or at least you have to love the fire. Impeach judges? Subpoena them? Arrest them?

Zany, zany, zany Newt. Or is that correct, correct, correct Newt?

The case can be made that judges can be impeached for rendering unconstitutional opinions. But it probably cant be made persuasively in an op-ed piece. I wont try. But Ill take on the other two.

They can be subpoenaed, and, because they can be subpoenaed, they can be arrested if they refuse to comply. Yes, I know that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said, The only basis by which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation. And, yes, I know that Andrew McCarthy, in a National Review Online article headlined There Is No Power and No Reason to Subpoena Federal Judges, claimed this action would violate separation-of-powers principles.

Let me try to take this out of the realm of opinion, into the realm of fact.

First, the only fair reading of Mr. Gingrichs comments is that he advocates subpoenaing judges as part of an impeachment investigation. If so, this surely can be done.

As background, Hinds Precedents - the historical go-to guide, cited 20 times by the Congressional Research Service in Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice, its publication prepared just last year in the midst of the investigation of Judge G. Thomas Porteous - cites many examples of Congress issuing subpoenas, summonses and, yes, arrest warrants after someone has been impeached, but before the trial begins.

Yes, and the Congress can declare certain matters immune from judicial review. Three co-equal branches means three co-equal branches, all of them subject to the Constitution, which the People have ratified and which they may amend if they so choose.

Problem is some people can’t get over the idea that Supreme Court means they’re “supreme” over the other branches of government if not over the citizens themselves. Of course they are only “supreme” over the other courts. They are at best equal to the other branches and there are ways to challenge them.

“Three co-equal branches means three co-equal branches, all of them subject to the Constitution, which the People have ratified and which they may amend if they so choose.”

Wrong! The Constitution says no such thing. You might want to do some reading. The founders didn’t like the way judges operated in England and they purposely made sure ( at least under the Constitution as they wrote it) that the Judicial Branch WAS NOT CO-EQUAL! If the Supreme Court is not subject to any measure of control with respect to their decisions, then we have a single branch supremacy. The problem is with the actions of the Congress over the past 50 years allowing the courts to “get away with legislating.” Go Newt! It’s time to clean house everywhere, the White House, the Congress and most importantly the Federal Judiciary. The SCOTUS is not supposed to rule with impunity.

The courts are the scape goats for the Progressive movement. They know the people don’t approve, so they let the courts take the rap, when in fact they could undo most of it, if they wanted to. They don’t.

<<< I have to say that Newt taking on this and the dangers of sharia have me looking at him again. <<<

As a Newt supporter, he strikes me as creative, brilliant and severly ADD. Thus, without a crisis, his mind does some disturbing meandering. When in a crisis, like we are now, the high IQ ADD mind focuses like a lazer on the problems. Like Sharia and an out of control court system, Obama in specific and the liberal media in general.

And I am being serious about all of this....he is a man for these times, but perhaps not for just any time.

I'm sure Newt is right on all points (he "is" a historian, after all), but DAMN, the man is long-winded. I'm wading through your link, and he's apparently forgotten that he's not writing a masters/PhD thesis/dissertation.

But given the choice of Newt or Romney, there "is" no real choice. Newt.....hands down. Newt has his flaws, but he is at least a genuine person. Romney is an empty suit who tilts whichever way the wind blows.

The case can be made that judges can be impeached for rendering unconstitutional opinions.

The unfortunate fact is that the constitutional delegates wanted out of town, so they just slapped together Article III and called it good. It wasn't long after passage of the Constitution that people began to realize that no one really knew what the powers or limitations on the Supreme Court were.

One key point many people miss is that Article III doesn't even say that the Court has any authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Constitution says the Court can rule on cases involving federal law, but what if a law is in conflict with the Constitution? Whether the Court can rule a law unconstitutional or whether it can simply ignore the law and let the Congress decide the constitutionality isn't clear.

How justices are removed and for what reasons also was never decided. The Constitution only says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." What is good behavior?

It is intended that the judiciary be vulnerable to the legislature so that the judiciary could not make decisions that would reduce the powers of the other branches - most notably legislative. They wanted to be sure the judiciary did not usurp without bound - hence this impeachment provision.

It has been pounded in most simple minded Americans that the Judiciary is equal branch and has the power to override anything the Senate, House, and President passes as law. The Court can offer an opinion but cannot change of make law. Judges are not the last rule. If we lose Newt we have lost the last chance for a Constitutional America.

“It is intended that the judiciary be vulnerable to the legislature so that the judiciary could not make decisions that would reduce the powers of the other branches - most notably legislative. They wanted to be sure the judiciary did not usurp without bound - hence this impeachment provision.”

The problem is that our gutless Congress has gone to sleep with respect to this issue! I just have to wonder how long the voters are going to continue to rate the Congress at 11% but fail to turn their particular rep out of office. The whole problem doesn’t lie with the elected officials per se, it’s the morons who vote allowing this mess to continue. I fear we are getting perilously close to the tipping point where the “takers” will be able ( at least for a couple more years) to continue to vote “free stuff” for themselves.

One key point many people miss is that Article III doesn't even say that the Court has any authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The Constitution says the Court can rule on cases involving federal law, but what if a law is in conflict with the Constitution? Whether the Court can rule a law unconstitutional or whether it can simply ignore the law and let the Congress decide the constitutionality isn't clear.

If you read Marbury v. Madison closely, you'll see that Marshall didn't explicitly claim jurisdiction for voiding unConstitutional laws. The decision merely says that a law contrary to the Constition is void. In other words, the Supreme Court is set up as a body that merely articulates a fact about an unConstitutional law.

Needless to say, this interpretation is way, way "out of the mainstream." Were it legitimized, the peons would get the idea that they don't have to obey unConstitutional laws period...

IF Newt makes it to the Whitehouse, and that’s a BIG if, wouldn’t he have to have BOTH House and Senate under Republican rule. AND, even if that happened, WHEN have all Republican agreed on ANYTHING? Don’t get me wrong, I believe Newt is correct but I am also a realist.

Without distinguishing between 14th Amendment constitutional administrative law and pre-14th natural rights common constitutional law, none of this means anything.

In law, the determination of jurisdiction is paramount. THERE IS NO WAY TO IMPEACH an administrative law judge who followed established policy, no matter how vaguely, because administrative jurisdiction already eliminates the founding principles of natural rights before it even gets started! Administrative law IS rule by fiat, so you can’t impeach FOR ruling by fiat if administrative jurisdiction is established!

Newt is slick, allright. And the judges aren’t worried at all.

32
posted on 12/27/2011 10:21:27 PM PST
by Talisker
(History will show the Illuminati won the ultimate Darwin Award.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.